Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 7, San Francisco 5, Bob Beck 2, Tech 2, Chiu 2, Webcor Obayashi 2, Reiskin 2, U.s. 2, The Sf State University 1, Dbe 1, Jpla 1, The Tech 1, The City 1, Dbs 1, Caltrans 1, Nolan 1, Pla 1, Realtime 1, Daly City 1, Lloyd 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 18, 2012
    1:00 - 1:30pm PST  

1:00pm
>> i have a question, which is based on these presentations and the goal of extending the project further north and the goal of obviously accommodating our neighbors to the extent we can, i certainly favor option 4. i think we've heard a lot of comments of people who were just generally opposed to the project overall. those arguments continue to. some merit, but the decision has been made and i continue to support the project, especially given how far we've come. so, my question really relates to option 4. do you think it's possible or feasible or likely that we will be able to accomplish all that is set up to be accomplished for option 4 by february 1st, 2013? >> so, i think that's a fair question. i guess i'd first say i wouldn't have recommended it if i thought it was not possible. i think there's a tremendous amount of work to be done and there are a lot of things that need to fall into place quickly in order to make that happen.
1:01pm
as i mentioned before, i have been in conversation with president chiu about this. i've been in conversation with mayor lee about this. our sense was as i said before, the city family can come together and marshal the resources to try to make this happen. and if we have a willing party in terms of the property owner, i think it is possible. we have evaluated the level of environmental review that we believe would be required. we believe that it's doable in that timeline. the other approvals we believe are doable in that timeline. it's certainly by no means easy. it's by no means a slam dunk. but, again, would not have recommended it if i didn't think it was viable. as i said before, i think it is a win/win scenario. it's one that i would like to see happen * . and with regard to the timing, as i tried to explain, if we don't make a
1:02pm
decision by a certain point, we start to impact the project and put the agency and the san franciscans who fund it at risk. so, that's where we got this, the deadline from. while the specific day is not based on science, this is not an arbitrary deadline, we need to make a decision around that time if we're going to do something other than, other than the base case. i would suggest that, if i might , perhaps the wording of the resolution to address what i think is a very clear issue of trust be something along the lines that if we're not able to achieve option 4, that we return to you on the meeting of february 5th, which would be coincidentally on february 1st to explain where we are.
1:03pm
>> i personally would have no objection to that. and just to be clear, is it -- the decision under option 4 need to be made by february or all of the preconditions that we've talked about need to be sewed up? i mean, i realize there can be a point in january where it all looks like it's lining up and you and the agency decide, we're going forward with option 4, subject to some contingencies. and if those go bad, it has the negative impacts you talked about. but i think the concern from the community that we're hearing, and i know you hear this, is that we sort of set a false goal. so, i wonder if february 1st is really the anticipated deadline to have everything done, all the environmental review, all the funding, all the agreements, or is the deadline really to make a decision and say we're far enough along the road that we're going to pursue option 4 despite some contingencies accepted down the line? >> i see it as the latter.
1:04pm
if, for example, we had all of our approvals and didn't have meeting -- we were requesting a supplemental appropriation from the city and that wasn't scheduled till the second week in february, you know, what we need to know is around february 1st that we have everything lined up to be able to make this happen. if that's the case, then we can move forward even if we still have a few loose ends to tie up. as we slip much beyond february 1st, we're kind of by default making a decision on the currently approved project. that is the only point. >> sounds like you and i have the same objective. i appreciate the assurance to the community members and to us that you wouldn't have put it on here for option 4 if you didn't think it was at least, you know, well within the realm of possibility. and, so, two questions. would it help us, would it help you in your political and other
1:05pm
efforts if we were to change the whereas clause that sort of suggests all of the approvals and funding have to be obtained by february 1st to essentially say they all had to be lined up or, you know, presumed to be feasible by february 1st, number one? and number two, would it help you if, as one of our valued constituents said, that we really change the resolution to say we're directing you to make option 4 happen to the extent you can? or do you really read it that way right now? >> to the latter, that's what i read and i read it as a direction from the board to make 4 happen. >> good. >> in terms of modifying the whereas to speak to the spirit of having everything lined up such that we know that, say, option 4 is certain as opposed to every last approval in place, i'm fine with that. >> well, i think -- and i'm glad you said that and i'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but
1:06pm
this is important. i think there's a difference between certainty and a close -- you know, a comfort level where we're willing to go down this. and we recognize there's some risk that something may unravel and we may have to deal with it. and i think the concern i'm hearing and sensitive to is if you require certainty by february 1st, that's not going to happen. but it is quite feasible to get the february 1st for you and we can't tell you what to do, have enough comfort that it's worth pursuing this option further. that's the difference i see. >> i'm sure there's language we can find that would achieve that goal. >> [speaker not understood], the notion i suggested, to come back to this board as opposed to, say, force them and bring it back to the board at that point. >> again what i would suggest is rather than trying to do something in january, that we were -- basically if option 4 isn't looking good, come february 1st, that i come back to the board on february 5th. >> [speaker not understood]
1:07pm
will still be at the board level, which gives the public ample opportunity once again to come and talk about where we are at that point. >> correct. >> [speaker not understood] obviously try to make 4 work, it seems to be support for that, among people who support the project. members of the board, any questions or comments? >> you covered my comment. >> okay. >> we don't need to beat a dead horse, and i'm to continue beating it for a brief second. are we worrying about the language of the resolution at this point or is that going to be something -- do we have that taken care of? because i just have a slight concern on the last further resolved clause. that ties into what you -- >> the question would be if -- i think you have a pretty clear direction to make option 4 happen if you can. and i think a lot of the concern about the resolution is what happens if you don't. are we here by resolving -- authorizing you to do a bunch of other things? i think that is the concern in the community. if we're changing that as
1:08pm
president nolan suggested to say, make option 4 happen, and if you can't, come back to us, it all but makes the resolution irrelevant, i think. i mean, at this point you just received clear direction from the board on one proposal. no, our city attorney never thinks these resolutions are relevant. >> i think you're free to move forward in that direction without approving the resolution. i think give guidance to the directors sufficient without approving the resolution. but i also note i think the thing that appears to generate the most concern in the resolution is actually the whereas clause which is much more specific than the resolved clauses. >> that's right. >> limit the resolution all together and do a [speaker not understood] to the board, is that something we can do? give direction to mr. reiskin along the lines we suggested here, to actively aggressively pursue number 4? and report back to us the february 5th meeting which will be the next meeting after that about what's happened to that and perhaps on january 15th a
1:09pm
report along the way of how likely it looks. >> listen, we've got a staff recommendation and i don't disregard that lightly. but the point here is we've been told by our old friend judson true and several respected member of the north beach and local neighborhoods that we've got some trust rebuilding to do. and what i hear as the biggest concern of trust is that this resolution will allow us to back slide so to another option that they don't want * so that maybe to me we junk the resolution and do everything we can to make option 4 happen. we're not making any promises. clap lap >> don't clap, there's no promises. just like i told the free youth riders, no promises, but we'll try. and then we'll come back and do it again. * >> i think it would be appropriate to have some sense of the board resolution -- not resolution, some kind of the sense of the board [inaudible] -- a motion or something. >> mr. chairman, actually you can just approve a motion to
1:10pm
take no action, to give direction to pursue option 4, and return to the board on february 5th. >> is that a motion somebody would like to make? >> i would be happy to make that motion. >> i'll second. >> further discussion? >> i would just like to make sure that we have director reiskin's approval and that we're not walking into something that isn't -- i mean, again, i don't disregard staff recommendation. >> i think that's fine. i think it meets the spirit of what we were proposing and it makes it clearer. and i think it gives the assurance that we need to the public. i think it's a good solution. >> important city departments that should be involved in this are already working together. the mayor and supervisor chiu already support it. we have the sense of the board, a motion and second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? it passes. appreciate your efforts. (applause) >> we'll take a recess here.
1:11pm
>>please stand by; meeting in recess >> good morning and welcome to the regular transbay joint powers authority board of supervisors' meeting for thursday, december 13th and happy holidays to everybody. may we take roll call please. >> prior to taking roll i will note for the record that director sartipi has a scheduling conflict and will not be present today. director lloyd? >> present. >> director metcalf? >> present. >> director reiskin. >> present. >> vice-chair ortiz? >> present. >> and chair kim?
1:12pm
>> present. >> madame chair you have a quorum. >> thank you. do you have any communications this morning? >> none that i'm aware of. >> is there any new or old business from the board of directors? seeing none let's move on to the executive director's report. >> good morning everyone. i would like to begin my report this morning on this last board meeting of the year by dedicating our board meeting in the memory of mike nevin, who recently left us. mike was one of our founding board members way back when we created the transbay joint powers authority and was very supportive over the years. he served as our first chairperson and was there with us in the initial years of moving the project forward. mike was a member of the caltrain board of directors and also a former san mateo county supervisor, mayor of daly city and san francisco police inspector and not only served on our board, but numerous other regional transportation
1:13pm
boards and we'll always be appreciative to mike for all of his work in the area of transportation, as well as his commitment for those in need. we extend our sympathies to mike and his family. i would also like to thank director reiskin, because a few board meetings ago director reiskin suspected that suggested that we look into that and found it's viable and could save us money and we modeled after the department of public works and caltrans regulations, allowing for savings during the bid submission and bidders will be encouraged to submit their value engineering proposals that will decrease the bid price, construction cost and if a proposal is accepted the savings attributable to that value engineering proposed are subtracted from the bidder's bid price making their bid
1:14pm
price more competitive and improving the likelihood of approval of the work. we'll realize 100% of the savings with the bidders value engineering proposal. during construction trade subcontractors will be encouraged to submit these proposals and after deducting costs incurred in the proposal, a trade subcontractor in the tjpa will share a 50/50 basis a shared savings. so thank you director for that suggestion and we'll implement that moving forward. >> great. >> now i would like to ask sarah to present our quarterly financial reports. >> good morning directors. these are your standard quarterly reports begining with a budget to actual report for the 1st quarter of this fiscal year. and indicating that everything is within budget so far. a contract status report showing dbe participation and amounts
1:15pm
authorized and spent on each contract and at this point, we are at -- through the federal fiscal year period that we're in we're at 14% dbe awarded and 21% sbe actual. the third report is our investment and earnings interest report and we continue to earn interest in our participation in the city treasurer's pool. we have a small amount of u.s. treasury notes in our trust account with landfill proceeds and we continue to have an interest-free bank account, so that we don't pay fees for the most part on the bank account. the fourth report is the inception to-date. i am happy to answer questions from directors. >> any questions from
1:16pm
directors? >> i just want to commend you all on the safety performance under this construction contract. it is pretty heavy, significant, complex work and the fact that you have continued to go through without issue. i don't know how much is attributable to being a jpla, but it's really phenomenal. it's a good model for everyone. one question on the financial report. where is the contingency for the overall project contingency tract and where would we be able to see that? >> we could start bringing you a report that shows the overall project budget. this is just the fiscal year budget. so it's just a slice of our best estimate of the overall capital budget that we anticipated to spend in this fiscal year. we don't budget for contingency. there is contingency built into each line item, so we have
1:17pm
looked at our cash flow, what we plan to spend on engineering and design, for instance and built in a contingency amount to come up with the budget amount we brought to you for approval. but we don't have contingency as a separate line item in the fiscal budget. >> there is a small reserve item, but what i didn't see and i didn't see it, i don't think, in the project report that we're going to see later either. where that contingency is and relative to how it's been drawn-down. >> we can definitely bring a report that shows that, but again, that is overall project budget. so this inception to-date is showing expenditures and revenues and if we're using contingency, it would be -- it would have been converted into a particular expenditure. so it would be engineering and design or construction or what not. it wouldn't be -- we wouldn't spend it as contingency. >> right. >> we would have transfered it
1:18pm
to another line item and spent it. >> if there is a way to get visibility on how it gets drawn-down, that would be helpful. >> no problem. >> thank you. >> great. and now directors, we have our last presentation of the year on our quarterly project labor agreement report by bob beck. >> thank you, board members. bob beck with tjpa to give an update on the pla progress in the last quarter. last month we had our quarterly meeting with the trade unions. so this represents now one full-year since we first approved the pla. and we had updates on upcoming trade packages to make sure that the unions are informed of work that is coming down the
1:19pm
pipeline. sorry, wrong mic. as well as reports on the progress that webcor has made in working with the veterans organizations in the bay area and we'll have ted wang from webcor come up and speak to that in a few minutes. as well as the work as the unions have done with tech 21 and local schools. so there has been a lot of good progress made on that front and there continues to be no work shortage issues or other impediments to our project. and we had no reportable incidents in safety in the last month. in terms of trade packages as you know at the last board meeting or the october board meeting we awarded the substructure package. $120 million on that package and the slide says the bids are due
1:20pm
january 10th. we do through the question from bidders process have requests to extend that bid date and we're evaluating those as we speak. so that is likely to be that -- that date is likely to be changed to give bidders additional time to prepare their submittals. >> how many prospective bidders are there? >> what is that? >> how many prospective bidders are there? >> five. >> that is great. >> in terms of working with the schools, we're having communication and preparation for this summer's program. there is a new coordinator, or new coordinators with the san francisco unified school district. and the school district is in the process of identifying potential candidates that they will refer to tjpa and other employers. i mentioned that our interns in the past have had a great deal
1:21pm
of success working on our project and have been very positive experience for them, preparing for college and moving into other activities. and we were featured by the national academy foundation in two of their recent publications, and the brochure you see three of our interns from the summer of 2011 with their mentors from the tjpa and project control staff. so we had very positive feedback from national academy foundation looking to tjpa as a model for the internship programs that we have been participating with in san francisco unified. i will ask ted to come up and talk about his efforts on the veterans program. i'm sorry, one more slide on the efforts of the unions reported at our last board meetings with their efforts
1:22pm
with san francisco unified. the carpenter's union is certifying the tech 21 program as a pre-apprenticeship program. and the building trades council is looking at other trades that may be able to certify pre-apprenticeship programs as well. so that is really good news and with that i will ask ted to come up. >> hi my name is ted wong with webcor obayashi. we had two engineers being guest lectures at the technology part of tech 21. so they already had their presentations earlier this month. i was going to give you an update on our collective veterans hiring effort. i'm happy to say that we have two of our founding members in
1:23pm
the room with us, manny flores and paula ressa of the carpenter's union. back in april we commenced a veteran's hiring steering committee, if you will, to look at issues of veterans geting into the construction field. we subsequently had two working group meetings with alameda workforce investment board, representatives, the edd there, as well as the carpenters' union and city build, as well as mission hiring hall. and what we came up with was essentially we found out that you needed to connect the dots with veterans hiring and a lot of organizations are out there working to support veterans, but nobody is really talking to each other and they are trying to individually reach out to employers and not really in a cohesive fashion. with unions and companies and
1:24pm
cbos we needed to develop a more cohesive hiring process and that is what we worked on. we had a success story working closely with the carpenter's union, where we have two returning veterans, i think from afghanistan, to essentially pre-screened through a community-based organization -- out of a group of 75 possible veterans through a craigslist ad and got them in for an interview. liked their attitude, their demeanor, their work ethic. they are both former marines and hired them into -- actually sponsored them and they went into the carpenter training pre-apprenticeship program and they could have skipped that and gone right in as an apprentice, but they wanted to see if they really
1:25pm
liked the carpenter program. so this is a replicable hiring program that we're going to try to push out and we have been pushing out to other employers, other subcontractors on this project, as well as the construction industry in general. i think it's important to note that it's not just about hiring veterans. it's about retention. and making sure that they succeed. and so on that note we have actually been looking at ways to ensure that they are going to succeed. just as a best practices note from all the research i have done, we found that veterans need each other once they are back from their tours of duties. they actually should retain a cohort, which they can find of hang out with and be together. that is what we're attempting to create with this whole construction hiring process as a way for them to still, like
1:26pm
there are so many jobs in the city that are coming down the pike, we want to make sure that they have a network to stay connected with each other. so on that note we're working with san francisco unified school district, as well as integrating veterans pre-orientation programs there. as well as the sf state university veterans club to generate internship paths into construction employers like webcor, turner, dbs and other employers. we can start with the transbay project and then move forward from there. so it's kind of a multi-pronged approach and still a work in progress. working with the unions, as well as the building trades to make sure that we have got them all aligned and identifying existing veterans in the union first, followed by any possible new-hires and beating the bushs to make sure that we get veterans integrated. kind of a lot to swallow, but i have a handout that outlines
1:27pm
everything that we have done to-date. webcor obayashi has hired nine direct hire positions within our company. turner at the recent u.s. hornet career fair hired one and i think the key is developing the one-on-one relationships with the sourcing agencies to find the veterans that are out there and get them into internships or apprenticeship programs so they can be hired. so that is my summary. thanks. >> thank you. >> the one other item on the veteran's report that i wanted to highlight was that enville buildings was awarded the hoisting contract for the project. so they are going to be providing the man lifts to
1:28pm
bring personnel into the excavation and in future to the upper-levels of transit center construction and the personnel to operate those. and that is a disabled veteran-owned business. so both in the field as contractors we're making end roads. just a few words on our apprenticeship programs. i reported last month that webcor had developed two tracking reports that we have now been using over the last four months as both a means of reporting, but also feedback to the operators and the contractors, so that in realtime they can make the adjustments necessary in the number of apprentices that they have on-site.
1:29pm
the two reporting mechanisms for all crafts to achieve a 1:5 or 1:6 ratio of all workers, as apprentices. and you can see now that the crafts are achieving that and that is based on total hours worked. and then for operating engineers and for laborers, it's on a daily basis that we want to have a 1:4 ratio of apprentices to journeymen laborers. you can see there at the last few months, we have finally reached that point where those red lines representing the apprentices in the field are exceeding the apprenticeship targets. so these tools that were developed have given us the ability to really monitor the payroll on a daily basis and make the adjustments